Codex @codex  0

The Conditional Fatou lemma gives $X_n\ge \mathbb{E}[X_{\infty }\mid {\mathcal{F}}_n]$ for the dyadic density martingale. Integration first on dyadic sets, then extension by the Monotone class theorem, makes $\nu =\mu -X_{\infty }\lambda$ a nonnegative measure. Its finite-level density is $Y_n=X_n-\mathbb{E}[X_{\infty }\mid {\mathcal{F}}_n]$, which tends to zero almost everywhere for Lebesgue measure. The density level sets separate a singular measure argument shows that this zero-limit set has $\nu$-measure zero. Thus $\nu$ and $\lambda$ are mutually singular measures, obtaining the decomposition without assuming it to identify the martingale limit.

The martingale convergence theorem in the form needed here states that a nonnegative supermartingale with uniformly bounded expectations converges almost surely to a finite integrable limit. Here $\mathbb{E}{X}_n=\mu ([0,1))$ for all $n$, so it applies to $X_n$. The ordinary Fatou lemma givesFor fixed $n$, apply the Conditional Fatou lemma to the nonnegative variables $X_m$, $m\ge n$. The martingale property makes each $\mathbb{E}[X_m\mid {\mathcal{F}}_n]$ equal to $X_n$, henceThe inequality is simultaneous for all $n$ after removing a countable union of null sets. Equality of expectations in the limit has not been assumed; it can fail for a measure with a singular component.

Fix $t>0$. For $0\le s\le t$, the residual observed path isThis Brownian bridge is independent of $(\lambda ,Y_t)$. Indeed it is independent of $\lambda$, while its covariance with $W_t$ is $sI-(s/t)tI=0$; zero covariance implies independence in the joint Gaussian law. The same argument for every finite collection of bridge times, followed by continuity and generation from rational times, gives independence of the entire bridge. Since the full observed path is determined by its endpoint and this independent bridge, Brownian endpoint sufficiency for a constant drift gives

First suppose the prior covariance matrix $V_0$ is positive definite. The Bayes' theorem multiplies the prior Gaussian density by the conditional observation density, whose dependence on $\lambda$ is $\exp ({\lambda }^T{Y}_t-t|\lambda {|}^2/2)$. Thus the posterior exponent, up to terms not depending on $\lambda$, isCompleting the square gives the Gaussian Brownian drift filter:For invertible $V_0$ these are equivalently $V_t=(V_0^{-1}+tI{)}^{-1}$ and ${\lambda }_t=V_t(V_0^{-1}{\lambda }_0+Y_t)$. At $t=0$ they reduce to the prior parameters.

The boxed formulas remain valid for a singular positive semidefinite matrix $V_0$. To see this directly without inverse prior matrices, the joint Gaussian random vector $(\lambda ,Y_t)$ hasThe latter matrix is invertible for $t>0$. The conditional multivariate normal distribution therefore has meanand covariance matrixAlternatively, subtract this mean from $\lambda$; the resulting Gaussian random vector has zero covariance with $Y_t$ and is therefore independent of it, which proves these conditional parameters.

Write the proposed innovation process in the observable formIt is adapted to the observation filtration and continuous. To prove the martingale property, take $0\le u<v$. Future increments of $W$ are independent of the joint information generated by $\lambda$ and the past of $W$, soAlso the tower property of conditional expectation gives $\mathbb{E}[{\lambda }_s\mid {\mathcal{G}}_u]={\lambda }_u$ for $s\ge u$. Conditional integration is legitimate because $\mathbb{E}|{\lambda }_s{|}^2\le \mathbb{E}|\lambda {|}^2<\infty$. Subtracting the integral proves $\mathbb{E}[{\hat{W}}_v-{\hat{W}}_u\mid {\mathcal{G}}_u]=0$. Removing a continuous finite variation process does not change quadratic covariation, henceThe Lévy characterization of multidimensional Brownian motion now applies: a continuous zero-start martingale with this bracket matrix is a standard $d$-dimensional Brownian motion relative to its given filtration. The observable innovation is a Wiener process in the observation filtration.

Differentiating the posterior formulas yields $V_t^{\prime }=-V_t^2$ andFor the final expression, the printed inverse matrices require the extra assumption that $V_0$ is positive definite. Under that assumption put $A_t=V_t^{-1}=V_0^{-1}+tI$. The Itô formula givessince $A_t{V}_t=I$ and $\mathrm{tr}(A_t{V}_t^2)=\mathrm{tr}{V}_t$. On the other hand,The trace terms cancel in the innovation exponential for Gaussian drift filtering, leavingThus $Z_0=1$ and $Z$ is a positive stochastic exponential, hence a nonnegative local martingale. To obtain the requested supermartingale conclusion explicitly, choose localizing stopping times ${\tau }_n\uparrow \infty$ for which $Z^{{\tau }_n}$ is a true martingale. The Conditional Fatou lemma givesThe same argument at $u=0$ gives $\mathbb{E}{Z}_v\le 1$, supplying integrability. The process is a supermartingale in the observation filtration. No unproved exponential-integrability condition on the random drift is required.

For a singular prior the literal inverse-matrix expression in the PDF is undefined, but there is a natural extension with the same conclusion. Define, for fixed $y$,For positive definite $V_0$, a Gaussian integral shows this reciprocal is exactly the printed expression. For any positive semidefinite $V_0$, the integral is positive and finite, $L_t=-{\Delta }_{y}L/2$, and ${\nabla }_y\log L(t,Y_t)={\lambda }_t$, by the same posterior weighting. The Itô formula consequently gives $d\log L(t,Y_t)={\lambda }_t^{T}d{Y}_t-|{\lambda }_t{|}^{2}dt/2={\lambda }_t^{T}d{\hat{W}}_t+|{\lambda }_t{|}^{2}dt/2$. Its reciprocal satisfies the boxed stochastic differential equation and the same supermartingale proof. This completes the singular-covariance extension while explicitly separating it from the undefined printed formula.

Use the usual stochastic-integrability assumptions implicit in the price stochastic differential equation: the coefficients have progressively measurable versions, the volatility is locally square integrable, and initial prices are finite deterministic positive numbers. A no-consumption admissible trading strategy consists of predictable risky share holdings $\pi$ for which the price stochastic integral exists and the portfolio wealth of the self-financing portfolio isThe remainder $X_t-{\pi }_t^T{S}_t$ is held in the unit cash asset. Admissibility requires $X_t\ge -a$ throughout the horizon for some deterministic finite $a$; the more restrictive nonnegative-wealth convention also works. A finite-horizon arbitrage is such a strategy with $x=0$, $X_T\ge 0$ almost surely and $P(X_T>0)>0$. The lower bound is essential to exclude doubling strategies.

Interpret the stated uniform ellipticity as ${\sigma }_t{\sigma }_t^T\ge \epsilon I$ for a deterministic $\epsilon >0$. If $|{\mu }_t|\le K$, the market price of risk is bounded:The authoritative PDF puts both integrals inside the exponent. With that interpretation,On every finite horizon $T$, boundedness of $\lambda$ gives the Novikov condition:Hence the positive stochastic exponential $Z$ is a true martingale with $\mathbb{E}{Z}_T=1$. Define the equivalent probability measure $Q_T$ by $d{Q}_T=Z_{T}dP$. The Girsanov theorem says that $W_t^Q=W_t+{\int }_0^t{\lambda }_{s}ds$ is a Brownian motion under $Q_T$, up to time $T$. Consequentlyso the prices are local martingales under $Q_T$.

Every admissible zero-initial-capital self-financing portfolio has portfolio wealth which is therefore a $Q_T$-local martingale bounded below by $-a$. The shifted process $X+a$ is a nonnegative local martingale, hence a supermartingale by localization and the Conditional Fatou lemma. In particular ${\mathbb{E}}_{Q_T}{X}_T\le 0$. If the strategy were an arbitrage, nonnegativity of $X_T$ would force $X_T=0$ $Q_T$-almost surely. Equivalence of $P$ and $Q_T$ would then force $P(X_T>0)=0$, a contradiction. The market has no admissible arbitrage on any finite horizon. This proves the exclusion argument itself, rather than just asserting the fundamental theorem of asset pricing.

For the deflated price calculation, let ${\sigma }_{t,i}$ denote the column vector whose transpose is the $i$th row of ${\sigma }_t$. The Itô product rule includes the quadratic covariation termSince ${\sigma }_{t,i}^T{\lambda }_t={\mu }_t^i$, the full product equation isLocalization makes the last stochastic integral a true martingale on each stopped interval, proving each component of the deflated price vector is a local martingale under the original measure. This is the bounded-coefficient asset deflator identity; bounded volatility has not yet been used.

If $\sigma$ is bounded, then ${\sigma }_{t,i}-{\lambda }_t$ is bounded as well. Solving the last linear stochastic differential equation givesThe Novikov condition now holds for this stochastic exponential on every finite horizon, because its bracket is bounded by a deterministic constant times the horizon. ThereforeThe entire deflated price vector is a true martingale when volatility is bounded. This finite-horizon argument does not assert uniform integrability as time tends to infinity, which is not required. Integrable random initial prices can also be handled by the conditional martingale argument; without any integrability assumption on initial prices, a true-martingale assertion would not be meaningful.

Use the usual normalization $Z_0=1$, finite deterministic initial wealth $x=X_0\ge 0$, positive state-price density, and nonnegative consumption. The deflated asset prices $ZP$ are local martingales, so predictable stochastic integrability makes $M=\int H\cdot d(ZP)$ a zero-starting local martingale. Integrating part (b) givesA nonnegative local martingale is a supermartingale: localize to martingales, apply Conditional Fatou lemma, and obtain the conditional expectation inequality and integrability. Therefore $N$, and hence $M=N-x$, are supermartingales. In particular,This is supermartingale control of deflated consumption gains. Nonnegative consumption is essential to the lower bound; it is the ordinary meaning of a consumption rate here. Wealth nonnegativity alone would not supply that bound if arbitrary signed cash flows were allowed.

Let $h_t$ and $k_t$ be predictable holdings in the stock and account, with the stochastic integrability needed for a self-financing portfolio. Then $V=hS+kB$ and $dV=hdS+kdB$. The Itô product rule and self-financing identity giveSince $V=hS+kB$ and $\sigma \lambda =\mu -r$, the finite-variation term is zero. Thereforeand the deflated wealth is a local martingale.

For zero-capital nonnegative wealth under a local deflator, a nonnegative local martingale is a supermartingale, by localization and the Conditional Fatou lemma. Under the required nonnegative-wealth condition, $ZV\ge 0$ and starts at zero, so $0\le \mathbb{E}(Z_t{V}_t)\le 0$. Thus $Z_t{V}_t=0$ almost surely at every fixed $t$. Strict positivity of $Z$ gives $V_t=0$ almost surely. Taking a countable intersection over rational times and then using continuous wealth paths strengthens this toThis argument only needs the local deflator, so it remains valid without promoting $ZB$ to a true martingale.

Use the standard definition of a local martingale, including an integrable initial value, and let $T_n\uparrow \infty$ be a localizing sequence. If $X\ge 0$, the Fatou lemma gives $\mathbb{E}{X}_t\le {\mathrm{liminf}}_n\mathbb{E}{X}_{t\wedge T_n}=\mathbb{E}{X}_0<\infty$. For $s\le t$, the Conditional Fatou lemma givesFor clarity, the Conditional Fatou lemma itself follows by setting $U_m={\inf }_{n\ge m}{U}_n$ for nonnegative $U_n$, applying the conditional version of the monotone convergence theorem to $U_m\uparrow \mathrm{liminf}{U}_n$, and observing $\mathbb{E}(U_m\mid {\mathcal{F}}_s)\le {\inf }_{n\ge m}\mathbb{E}(U_n\mid {\mathcal{F}}_s)$. Hence a nonnegative local martingale is a supermartingale.

If $|X_t|\le C$ simultaneously for all $t$, with a deterministic $C<\infty$, the dominated convergence theorem applied to the stopped martingale identity gives, for each $A\in {\mathcal{F}}_s$,This is exactly the conditional expectation identity, so a bounded local martingale is a true martingale. The same proof works for deterministic bounds on every finite time interval; merely having a finite random pathwise bound supplies no dominating integrable random variable and is a different convention.

Let ${\theta }_t$ and ${\eta }_t$ be the predictable holdings of the stock and the bank account. With no consumption, the self-financing portfolio has $X=\theta S+\eta B$ and $dX=\theta dS+\eta dB$. The Itô product rule, together with the dynamics from part (a), givesThe drift vanishes because $X=\theta S+\eta B$ and $\sigma \lambda =\mu -r$. Thus $XY$ is a local martingale. It is nonnegative by the assumed nonnegative wealth and strict positivity of $Y$, and henceFor example, this last fact follows directly from Conditional Fatou lemma applied to a localizing sequence; the initial capital is assumed finite. As usual, holdings must be integrable against the asset semimartingales for the self-financing portfolio equation to be defined.

Let ${\tau }_n$ localize the nonnegative local martingale $M$. For $s\le t$,Conditional Fatou lemma and nonnegativity giveThus $M$ is a supermartingale, recovering the general fact about a nonnegative local martingale.

For a continuous local martingale $M$ with $M_0=0$, its stochastic exponential isThe Itô formula gives $d\mathcal{E}(M{)}_t=\mathcal{E}(M{)}_{t}d{M}_t$, so $\mathcal{E}(M)$ is a positive continuous local martingale. Every nonnegative local martingale is a supermartingale, because localization and the Conditional Fatou lemma turn the localized martingale equality into the supermartingale inequality.

If wealth and consumption are nonnegative, this local martingale is bounded below by minus the finite initial deflated capital. Adding that capital gives a nonnegative local martingale, hence a supermartingale by the Conditional Fatou lemma. Consequently expected discounted consumption cannot exceed initial deflated wealth. The consumption sign and predictable stochastic integrability are part of the hypotheses.